[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil/random_seed: Speed up fate test

2022-01-25 Thread Michael Niedermayer
This decreases the quality of the seeds during the test, it does not affect
the seeds outside the test.
There is a small chance that this causes test failures, if that happens
the threshold needs adjusting

Testing on an idle x86_64 system shows that this passes even with the test 
strength
increased to 32768 from 256 with 0 retries
So test failures are not anticipated
Lowering the threshold from 3 to 2 causes failure at test strength of 32768

Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer 
---
 libavutil/random_seed.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/libavutil/random_seed.c b/libavutil/random_seed.c
index 70dc509d2f..509b74936c 100644
--- a/libavutil/random_seed.c
+++ b/libavutil/random_seed.c
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
 last_td = t - last_t;
 buffer[++i & 511] += last_td % 3294638521U;
 if ((t - init_t) >= CLOCKS_PER_SEC>>5)
-if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && i - 
last_i > 8)
+if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && i - 
last_i > 3)
 break;
 }
 last_t = t;
-- 
2.17.1

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".


Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil/random_seed: Speed up fate test

2022-01-28 Thread Anton Khirnov
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2022-01-25 11:21:08)
> This decreases the quality of the seeds during the test, it does not affect
> the seeds outside the test.
> There is a small chance that this causes test failures, if that happens
> the threshold needs adjusting
> 
> Testing on an idle x86_64 system shows that this passes even with the test 
> strength
> increased to 32768 from 256 with 0 retries
> So test failures are not anticipated
> Lowering the threshold from 3 to 2 causes failure at test strength of 32768
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer 
> ---
>  libavutil/random_seed.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/libavutil/random_seed.c b/libavutil/random_seed.c
> index 70dc509d2f..509b74936c 100644
> --- a/libavutil/random_seed.c
> +++ b/libavutil/random_seed.c
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
>  last_td = t - last_t;
>  buffer[++i & 511] += last_td % 3294638521U;
>  if ((t - init_t) >= CLOCKS_PER_SEC>>5)
> -if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && i 
> - last_i > 8)
> +if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && i 
> - last_i > 3)

On my Ryzen 5950x, this brings the test runtime from > 60s to ~30s,
which is a good improvement, but still quite a lot (the entire FATE run
with -j32 and without the random-seed test is ~40s).

How about something like this instead (takes about 8s on my machines, observed
no test failures):
diff --git a/libavutil/random_seed.c b/libavutil/random_seed.c
index 70dc509d2f..b006a75c39 100644
--- a/libavutil/random_seed.c
+++ b/libavutil/random_seed.c
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
 static uint32_t buffer[512] = { 0 };
 unsigned char digest[20];
 uint64_t last_i = i;
+uint64_t cnt = 0;
 
 av_assert0(sizeof(tmp) >= av_sha_size);
 
@@ -88,9 +89,11 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
 
 for (;;) {
 clock_t t = clock();
-if (last_t + 2*last_td + (CLOCKS_PER_SEC > 1000) >= t) {
+if (last_t + 2*last_td + (CLOCKS_PER_SEC > 1000) >= t &&
+!(TEST && cnt > (1 << 15))) {
 last_td = t - last_t;
 buffer[i & 511] = 1664525*buffer[i & 511] + 1013904223 + (last_td 
% 3294638521U);
+cnt++;
 } else {
 last_td = t - last_t;
 buffer[++i & 511] += last_td % 3294638521U;

-- 
Anton Khirnov
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".


Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil/random_seed: Speed up fate test

2022-01-30 Thread Michael Niedermayer
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:18:45PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2022-01-25 11:21:08)
> > This decreases the quality of the seeds during the test, it does not affect
> > the seeds outside the test.
> > There is a small chance that this causes test failures, if that happens
> > the threshold needs adjusting
> > 
> > Testing on an idle x86_64 system shows that this passes even with the test 
> > strength
> > increased to 32768 from 256 with 0 retries
> > So test failures are not anticipated
> > Lowering the threshold from 3 to 2 causes failure at test strength of 32768
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer 
> > ---
> >  libavutil/random_seed.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/libavutil/random_seed.c b/libavutil/random_seed.c
> > index 70dc509d2f..509b74936c 100644
> > --- a/libavutil/random_seed.c
> > +++ b/libavutil/random_seed.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
> >  last_td = t - last_t;
> >  buffer[++i & 511] += last_td % 3294638521U;
> >  if ((t - init_t) >= CLOCKS_PER_SEC>>5)
> > -if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && 
> > i - last_i > 8)
> > +if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && 
> > i - last_i > 3)
> 
> On my Ryzen 5950x, this brings the test runtime from > 60s to ~30s,
> which is a good improvement, but still quite a lot (the entire FATE run
> with -j32 and without the random-seed test is ~40s).
> 
> How about something like this instead (takes about 8s on my machines, observed
> no test failures):

this works, though it may be better to estimate the collected entropy 
and stop once enough is collected

i played around with the code a bit and got the test to pass with 32768 in 5min
down from i think 17min
and the unmodified 256 test from 8 sec to 3 sec 
the 8 is with my 2 and your patch applied
but the resulting threshold in the code doesnt feel correct

also a completely different approuch would be to predict/compress the
timestamp deltas to estimate the entropy

i need to do something else now or i loose my sanity, maybe ill look at
it again in a few days, but feel free to continue working on the WIP below
if you like (if something makes no sense in it it likely doesnt)

thx

diff --git a/libavutil/random_seed.c b/libavutil/random_seed.c
index b1bbbd1b69..0255de7302 100644
--- a/libavutil/random_seed.c
+++ b/libavutil/random_seed.c
@@ -62,18 +62,21 @@ static int read_random(uint32_t *dst, const char *file)
 #endif
 }
 
+#define N_COUNTS 5
+
 static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
 {
 uint64_t tmp[120/8];
 struct AVSHA *sha = (void*)tmp;
 clock_t last_t  = 0;
 clock_t last_td = 0;
-clock_t init_t = 0;
+clock_t last_td2 = 0;
 static uint64_t i = 0;
 static uint32_t buffer[512] = { 0 };
 unsigned char digest[20];
 uint64_t last_i = i;
-uint64_t cnt = 0;
+uint32_t last_td_count[N_COUNTS] = {0};
+int entropy = 0;
 
 av_assert0(sizeof(tmp) >= av_sha_size);
 
@@ -89,21 +92,33 @@ static uint32_t get_generic_seed(void)
 
 for (;;) {
 clock_t t = clock();
-if (last_t + 2*last_td + (CLOCKS_PER_SEC > 1000) >= t &&
-!(TEST && cnt > (1 << 15))) {
-last_td = t - last_t;
-buffer[i & 511] = 1664525*buffer[i & 511] + 1013904223 + (last_td 
% 3294638521U);
-cnt++;
+clock_t tmp = t - last_t;
+if (last_td == tmp || last_td2 == tmp) {
+buffer[i & 511] = 1664525*buffer[i & 511] + 1013904223 + (tmp % 
3294638521U);
+if (last_td == tmp) {
+last_td_count[0] ++;
+} else {
+int add_entropy = INT_MAX;
+for (int j = N_COUNTS-1; j; j--) {
+add_entropy = FFMIN(add_entropy, abs(last_td_count[j] - 
last_td_count[0]));
+last_td_count[j] = last_td_count[j-1];
+}
+last_td_count[0] = 0;
+if (last_td2 != last_td)
+entropy += av_log2(add_entropy);
+last_td2 = last_td;
+}
 } else {
-last_td = t - last_t;
-buffer[++i & 511] += last_td % 3294638521U;
-if ((t - init_t) >= CLOCKS_PER_SEC>>5)
-if (last_i && i - last_i > 4 || i - last_i > 64 || TEST && i - 
last_i > 3)
-break;
+if (last_td2 != last_td)
+entropy += av_log2(FFMIN(abs(last_td - tmp), abs(last_td2 - 
tmp)) + 1) + av_log2(last_td_count[0]);
+buffer[++i & 511] += tmp % 3294638521U;
+last_td2 = last_td;
+last_td_count[0] = 0;
 }
+if (last_i && entropy > 32 || entropy > 128 || TEST && entropy > 8)
+break;
+last_td = tmp;
 last_t = t;
-if (!init_t)
-init_t = t;
 }
 
 if(TEST) {



[...]
-- 
Michael Gn